|
|
Post by The Tram Man on Jul 23, 2015 0:36:13 GMT
I just read that there was a 1938 stock trailer originally converted for the Track Recording Train in the 1978(1). However, this car, TRC912, was never used, but instead it was stored at Rotherham until 2006(2), but my other source(1) lists the car as being preserved in London. I would like to know, does anyone have any pictures of this car? I did find a link to an old thread on this forum, but as you can see, the pictures are gone. I also read on Wikipedia that "the original 1960 track recording cars were scrapped." Personally i have never read this before either. What did these cars look like? If this thread doesn't belong here, i do apologize. Sources: (1) London Underground Rolling Stock by Brian Hardy, 1997 (2) Wikipedia |
|
|
|
Post by roboverground on Jul 23, 2015 17:01:08 GMT
Original plan was 4 car 1960 3910-(standard stock4902-4903)-3911 to perform track testing fitted with instrumentation(from 1971) then in 1977 due overhaul 1938 stock trailer car 01231 was converted and painted/ numbered as TRC912 with track recording unit letteringto perform track testing to replace trailer cars 4902-4903
1960 Motor cars 3910 and 3911 had been planned to carry TRC910 and TRC911 but asbestos was found during overhaul so project cancelled
After storeage at Acton until 1987 it moved to Ealing Common as a stores unit
|
|
|
|
Post by The Tram Man on Jul 23, 2015 23:56:42 GMT
Forgive this posibly very stupid question, but couldn't they just remove the asbestos and continue working on those cars?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 24, 2015 6:42:26 GMT
Forgive this posibly very stupid question, but couldn't they just remove the asbestos and continue working on those cars? It's that word "just" - as in "couldn't they just extend the Waterloo & City Line to Moorgate"! Asbestos is quite innocuous in solid sheet form (it is chemically inert, doesn't burn, and gives off no fumes - which is why it was so widely used), but it was discovered in the late 1970s that the dust is highly carcinogenic if inhaled, so any work involving asbestos, including "just" removing it, is an extremely hazardous process and requires so many special precautions and facilities to protect the workers and the environment, that if asbestos is discovered it is usually better to leave it alone and find another donor vehicle. Asbestos in scrapped vehicles is disposed of by firing the entire vehicle at about 1250C, at which temperature the asbestos fibres melt and form a harmless glass-like structure. This procedure is not recommended if you want to use the vehicle again. www.flickr.com/photos/23664186@N07/4560343506 |
|
|
|
Post by The Tram Man on Jul 24, 2015 22:54:10 GMT
Ok, maybe "just" was a dumb word to include. But wouldn't the other 1960 stock cars also be contaminated with asbestos?
But now that you mention it, why hasn't the W&C been extended? I've always wondered. But that's a question for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 24, 2015 23:47:34 GMT
Ok, maybe "just" was a dumb word to include. But wouldn't the other 1960 stock cars also be contaminated with asbestos?. No, not a dumb question. Asbestos is an unusual material, and the hazards associated with it are not at all obvious and took a long time to be recognised and understood. The effects of the dust are very slow-acting, which means that it took a long time for the disease to show up and even longer to identify the cause. By that time there was an awful lot of it built in to things, with little record of where it had been used. Removal is expensive, and usually the only economic way to dispose of it involves destruction of the object in which it is incorporated. As I mentioned, asbestos is chemically inert (chemically similar to glass, but with different physical properties) and relatively safe if left alone. It is the risk of inhaling the tiny fibres, which can cause lung cancer, which is dangerous. So if there is asbestos in the other 1960 cars it can stay there until the cars are scrapped, as long as everyone who might want to modify them knows it's there. However, the conversion work to create the TRC might well have involved drilling or sawing into it, generating asbestos sawdust. Use as a stores unit required no such rewiring. Or it could simply be that it was the 1938 car that had the asbestos. But now that you mention it, why hasn't the W&C been extended? I've always wondered. Oh dear - briefly, 1. it can barely cope with the traffic demand as it is. 2. The platforms at Bank are hemmed in by the Central Line in front and the Northern and DLR below, so any extension would have to be on a new deeper alignment, with new platforms 3. The platforms at Waterloo point SE, so any extension to the SW would again have to be on a new alignment with new platforms 4. Once you've built new stations to satisfy 3 and 4 all you've got left are the running tunnels. 5. If you want your extension to carry main line trains, the running tunnels would have to be expanded to main line gauge. This is not easy - tunnel boring machines are designed to chew through virgin clay, not cast iron tunnel linings. 6. Stations are expensive, running tunnels are cheap. If you're going to the trouble of replacing both stations it's quicker and cheaper to build a completely new line. in parallel with the existing W&C (and you get two lines instead of one that way!) 7. If your proposed extension's purpose is to connect the lines out of Liverpool Street (or Moorgate) with those out of Waterloo,if you build a new line you can choose a better alignment for such a tunnel - e.g from Wimbledon to Tottenham Hale (or Alexandra Palace), via Chelsea and Hackney. Sound familiar? |
|
|
|
Post by The Tram Man on Jul 26, 2015 22:48:25 GMT
No, not a dumb question. Asbestos is an unusual material, and the hazards associated with it are not at all obvious and took a long time to be recognised and understood. The effects of the dust are very slow-acting, which means that it took a long time for the disease to show up and even longer to identify the cause. By that time there was an awful lot of it built in to things, with little record of where it had been used. Removal is expensive, and usually the only economic way to dispose of it involves destruction of the object in which it is incorporated. As I mentioned, asbestos is chemically inert (chemically similar to glass, but with different physical properties) and relatively safe if left alone. It is the risk of inhaling the tiny fibres, which can cause lung cancer, which is dangerous. So if there is asbestos in the other 1960 cars it can stay there until the cars are scrapped, as long as everyone who might want to modify them knows it's there. However, the conversion work to create the TRC might well have involved drilling or sawing into it, generating asbestos sawdust. Use as a stores unit required no such rewiring. Or it could simply be that it was the 1938 car that had the asbestos. I have heard of asbestos, and i know a little about the hazards, but i never thought it was quite like this. Here in Sweden we stopped using asbestos because of the risk, as i understood it, in general. Not because it was hazardous when tampered with. The Stockholm local transit company started sanitizing it because it was considered dangerous to passengers. Atleast that's what i've heard. Could be. 1. it can barely cope with the traffic demand as it is. 2. The platforms at Bank are hemmed in by the Central Line in front and the Northern and DLR below, so any extension would have to be on a new deeper alignment, with new platforms 3. The platforms at Waterloo point SE, so any extension to the SW would again have to be on a new alignment with new platforms 4. Once you've built new stations to satisfy 3 and 4 all you've got left are the running tunnels. 5. If you want your extension to carry main line trains, the running tunnels would have to be expanded to main line gauge. This is not easy - tunnel boring machines are designed to chew through virgin clay, not cast iron tunnel linings. 6. Stations are expensive, running tunnels are cheap. If you're going to the trouble of replacing both stations it's quicker and cheaper to build a completely new line. in parallel with the existing W&C (and you get two lines instead of one that way!) 7. If your proposed extension's purpose is to connect the lines out of Liverpool Street (or Moorgate) with those out of Waterloo,if you build a new line you can choose a better alignment for such a tunnel - e.g from Wimbledon to Tottenham Hale (or Alexandra Palace), via Chelsea and Hackney. Sound familiar? A lot of new information for me. 1. I know it's busy during the peak, but it wasn't very crowded when i travelled on it. 2. That is something i didn't know. 3. I wasn't thinking of an extension to the SW, just in general. But i see your point. 4. Running tunnels is quite a big part of an underground railway. 5. There is relatively new stock on the line, so replacing them with main line trains sounds a bit unnecessary to me. 6. Good points. 7. Sound familiar? Not really. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jul 27, 2015 4:45:53 GMT
Can we please stay on topic - this is getting into Ripas Territory!
Thanks
Metman
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 27, 2015 8:48:59 GMT
I have heard of asbestos, and i know a little about the hazards, but i never thought it was quite like this. Here in Sweden we stopped using asbestos because of the risk, as i understood it, in general. Not because it was hazardous when tampered with. The Stockholm local transit company started sanitizing it because it was considered dangerous to passengers. Atleast that's what i've heard.. In normal operation asbestos is unlikely to be hazardous to passengers as long as it is behind panelling, but would be potentially hazardous if exposed, for example in an accident, so it is no longer used in new vehicles and was eliminated from existing trains, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, as quickly as practicable, either by scrapping the whole vehicle as soon as replacements could be built - the rapid rate at which the "Pacer" and "Sprinter" dmu fleets were rolled out was largely driven by this - or by removing it if the vehicle had a sufficiently long future potential to justify the cost, or was of sufficient historical interest to justify the effort. In the case of the TRC, evidently it was decided it would be cheaper to use a different vehicle than go through all the hoops required after asbestos was discovered.. Drain: Apologies fro the thread drift, but just to answer the queries: 1.it wasn't very crowded when I travelled on it. 3. I wasn't thinking of an extension to the SW, just in general. . 4. Running tunnels is quite a big part of an underground railway. 5. There is relatively new stock on the line, so replacing them sounds a bit unnecessary to me. 7. Sound familiar? Not really. 1. Regardless of the off-peak situation, any extension needs to take account of peak hour demand. 3. There are better candidates to extend in the direction it is pointing, notably the Bakerloo (SE) and CX branch of the Northern (south). 4. see point 6 5. The stock is already over twenty years old, and more trains would be needed anyway to run a longer line. (And a bigger depot: more cost). If the extension connects with an NR route the trains have to meet NR standards - and won't have the "grandfather" rights the 1972 stock has north of Queens Park. If it doesn't connect with NR, the extension would have to be new build throughout. 7. I thought that was a fairly accurate description of Crossrail 2 ! |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2015 10:08:56 GMT
norbitonflyer - in fairness to @the Tram Man , who may be new to this forum and seems to live overseas, we ought collectively to explain that extending the W&C is one of those ideas that resurfaces about every six months and has been so comprehensively done to death that many, on seeing the words "extending the W&C" rush outside and bang their heads on the wall. I guess @the Tram Man hasn't seen that in action, as it were.... On asbestosis, when I had the displeasure of having to work in Kings Cross Eastside offices for a while, the problem of asbestos in the walls was such that we were forbidden to insert drawing pins into the plaster.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 27, 2015 10:31:53 GMT
norbitonflyer - in fairness to @the Tram Man , who may be new to this forum and seems to live overseas, we ought collectively to explain that extending the W&C is one of those ideas that resurfaces about every six months and has been so comprehensively done to death that many, on seeing the words "extending the W&C" rush outside and bang their heads on the wall. I guess @the Tram Man hasn't seen that in action, as it were.... We should probably have a thread in the W&C area explaining why extending it is impractical at best. Written neutrally and with sources for things it would be a useful document I think. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jul 27, 2015 10:55:22 GMT
norbitonflyer - in fairness to @the Tram Man , who may be new to this forum and seems to live overseas, we ought collectively to explain that extending the W&C is one of those ideas that resurfaces about every six months and has been so comprehensively done to death that many, on seeing the words "extending the W&C" rush outside and bang their heads on the wall. I guess @the Tram Man hasn't seen that in action, as it were.... We should probably have a thread in the W&C area explaining why extending it is impractical at best. Written neutrally and with sources for things it would be a useful document I think. When you remember why it was built in the first place i.e. to take commuters FROM Waterloo TO the City, there probably was no intention of even considering extending it further south. Think on it-the tunnels have tight turns, as when it was built it had to follow the roads, and not tunnel under buildings, so it's not the most rapid of tube lines, and exactly where is it going to be extended to? We had the Northern Line as is now extended to Morden in the 1920's, and that old perennial of extending the Bakerloo should cover any need to extend the W&C. As the Irish are won't to say: "I wouldn't start from here." |
|
|
|
Post by The Tram Man on Jul 27, 2015 23:28:31 GMT
Metman: Sorry about the drift.
norbitonflyer: In the case of Stockholm, some of the cars that were sanitized were over 20 years old at the time, and some survived for another 20-25 years even as replacements were coming into service. Don't know if that's worth the effort or cost as those cars were pretty worn out by the time they were sanitized, not to mention when they were retired. But the accident thing, that could be why. I've never thought about that, actually. In the case of the TRC however, it does sound like the choice taken was indeed for the best.
1. True.
5. True. As for the NR bit, didn't think of that.
7. Aha, well, my knowledge of the Crossrail programme (programmes?) is very limited.
Anyway, enough of that.
grahamhewett: I do live overseas, but i have been a member of this forum since 2009. The W&C thing is however something i haven't read about, but probably should have looked for after reading post number 4 in this thread. I mean, instead of asking the question i did, even though i did say that it was "a question for another thread."
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2015 8:27:42 GMT
@the Tram Man - - you are excused! If you look at the earlier version of the RIPAS thread, you'll see it's loaded with plans to extend the W&C (Southend was the most extravagant noted) and the perennial proposals of that ilk led to the present arrangement on this forum of having a section clearly marked fantasy projects - the result has been very successful so far. On another forum - - London Reconnections - matters had become so bad that the moderators produced an article about crayonistas (people who doodle bizarre/expensive/stupid plans for new tube lines) and extendadors - people who cannot resist the idea of grandiose extensions to the W&C and the GN&C. That also produced the desired self-restraint...
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 28, 2015 19:11:22 GMT
@the Tram Man - - you are excused! If you look at the earlier version of the RIPAS thread, you'll see it's loaded with plans to extend the W&C (Southend was the most extravagant noted) and the perennial proposals of that ilk led to the present arrangement on this forum of having a section clearly marked fantasy projects - the result has been very successful so far. On another forum - - London Reconnections - matters had become so bad that the moderators produced an article about crayonistas (people who doodle bizarre/expensive/stupid plans for new tube lines) and extendadors - people who cannot resist the idea of grandiose extensions to the W&C and the GN&C. That also produced the desired self-restraint... I've always felt pidgin Spanish is a bit odd for describing rail fantasists. Wouldn't the more correct terms be "Usuarios Crayón" and "Extensores" on Londres Reconexiones? I do enjoy a spot of pedantry after a glass of wine or two Graham so please take no notice........  |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2015 20:54:34 GMT
@the Tram Man - - you are excused! If you look at the earlier version of the RIPAS thread, you'll see it's loaded with plans to extend the W&C (Southend was the most extravagant noted) and the perennial proposals of that ilk led to the present arrangement on this forum of having a section clearly marked fantasy projects - the result has been very successful so far. On another forum - - London Reconnections - matters had become so bad that the moderators produced an article about crayonistas (people who doodle bizarre/expensive/stupid plans for new tube lines) and extendadors - people who cannot resist the idea of grandiose extensions to the W&C and the GN&C. That also produced the desired self-restraint... I've always felt pidgin Spanish is a bit odd for describing rail fantasists. Wouldn't the more correct terms be "Usuarios Crayón" and "Extensores" on Londres Reconexiones? I do enjoy a spot of pedantry after a glass of wine or two Graham so please take no notice........ I think you should tell us more about the wine. BTW if a conquistador is one who conquers and an estufador is one who "stuffs" goods onto a ship, why isn't an extendador one who extends ? Or should it be "extensador"? |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 29, 2015 20:02:55 GMT
I've always felt pidgin Spanish is a bit odd for describing rail fantasists. Wouldn't the more correct terms be "Usuarios Crayón" and "Extensores" on Londres Reconexiones? I do enjoy a spot of pedantry after a glass of wine or two Graham so please take no notice........ I think you should tell us more about the wine. BTW if a conquistador is one who conquers and an estufador is one who "stuffs" goods onto a ship, why isn't an extendador one who extends ? Or should it be "extensador"?  Graham, yet another £5 per bottle of Pinot from ASDA, followed by some Retford brewed Sloe Gin. Like you, I often feel bemused by the seemingly endless examples of non-standard language use in various countries. Perhaps a compromise to describe fantastical explorations of the unfeasible, tube-wise, would be a "naranjaroca". Buenas noches..... |
|
Graham, yet another £5 per bottle of Pinot from ASDA, followed by some Retford brewed Sloe Gin. Like you, I often feel bemused by the seemingly endless examples of non-standard language use in various countries. Perhaps a compromise to describe fantastical explorations of the unfeasible, tube-wise, would be a "naranjaroca". Buenas noches..... 
